GOP, The WORK act and "War on Moms"

Originally posted by The Old American
1) All women have the right to reproduce at any time, unless they are found to be a danger to themselves or children. Please show us where
conservatives try to cut a woman's right to reproduce.

This is akin to saying that voting is a "right" as long as you pay for your own ballot and associated administrative costs to count that ballot and
due to funding cuts thier will be only one voting booth per state...while at the same time having the government invest 100's of Millions of dollars
into programs that espouse that voting is sinful and wrong.

Originally posted by The Old American
2) I'm pretty sure the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is still in effect.

Which has been eroded by loop-holes and a long series of conservative court rulings. The last was Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co where the
court ruled that the woman who was being paid less than her peers must realize it and file suit within 6 months.

In the Walker-Wisconsins situation, he just repealed a state law that allowed women to plead their case in the less costly, more accessable state
court system. Absent the law that he repealed any potential victims of discrimination must now make thier case in Federal Court ...which is much more
complex, costly and difficult for the average wisconsin woman.

And maybe you should follow your own advice. The information is out there, I suggest you open your eyes long enough to see it.

Republican legislatures have lately set their sites on repealing their state's equal pay acts - and read along with me now - their state's
act, such as the one Walker just banished in Wisconsin and the ones the GOP has targeted for elimination in Michigan and in Iowa.

What this will mean for these state's residents is they will no longer be able to avail themselves of small claims courts or their state's circuit
court to fight gender discrimination.

Obama's has also authored the Ledbetter Act, which allows for discrimination suits against an employer to proceed no matter how much time has lapsed
when an employee discovers they have been discriminated against based on pay. Prior to the Ledbetter act, you could only go back 180 days from the
last pay period, and not back to the actual perceived discrimination.

3) Not sure what you're talking about there unless you're talking about OSHA and workplace safety, in which case see #2.

Choice of work has to do with health benefits. Many women are limited in thier choice of work due to pre-existing conditions...which insurance
companies consider pregnancy, plans to be pregnant or ever having a child as a pre-existing condition. Actually I had BCBS agent once tell me that
having a wife who was pregnant actually effected my individual policy alone...being a father is a high health risk to insurers

As for OSHA and safety in the work-place, it harkens back to WW2 and women in the factory.

The GOPs disdain for OSHA is not secret, they have been very vocal about it.

OSHA Budget Cut Plan Spotlights Regulatory Debate

Congressional Republicans are promising to scrub the government for what they say are "job killing" regulations. One of their primary targets is the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA.

Congressional foes of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have proposed to slash tens of millions of dollars from the agency’s
standards, enforcement and information programs for the rest of this year.

The cuts would return OSHA to its 2004 funding level and could force shutdowns for several months, officials said.

"The Republicans have proposed a 20% cut, and given [that] half a year's over, that really means a 40% cut," OSHA administrator David Michaels
says. "It would really have a devastating effect on all of our activities."

The cuts would likely mean layoffs of hundreds of inspectors and thousands fewer health and safety inspections, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis told
a House Committee.

The cuts would delay new standards, eliminate about 18,000 workplace safety inspections, and possibly lead to the layoffs of several recent OSHA
hires, including 200 inspectors, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis has testified before the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

I have followed my own advice. A state law can act in tandem with a federal one, but it cannot override it (much as a lot of us would like it to). The
law in Wisconsin that was just repealed, which I can't for the life of me figure out why, does nothing to protect or hinder women from the federal law
on equal pay. It only provides an alternate path for them to take through the court system.

Women are still fully protected under the federal law, protection of which they are guaranteed. But they aren't guaranteed a cheap or expedient
path.

So then, how would you characterize a political agenda directed at making it more difficult and expensive for women pursue justice in cases of
workplace discrimination?...a poltical agenda executed through the repeal of various state laws and conservative court rulings/case law redefingin the
act at the Federal level limiting those protections?

Again...We sit on opposite sides of the fence and have had some loud disagreements in the past, but I respect that you are posting and present on a
thread that doesn't offer you "easy punches" to throw. It shows intellectual courage. I starred your posts for that alone.....now if you would just
stop with the right wing spin ops

Perhaps there is a win/win possibility here for both Dems and Repubs.

Is this still in "draft" mode or is there some language that is at least comparable to the current laws.

If they analyze the proposals themselves, both sides might get to common ground and give voters some hope.

Can someone direct to the proposals if they are available.

Some people here might actually be able to make suggestions to their own Senators and Congress people.

Again...We sit on opposite sides of the fence and have had some loud disagreements in the past, but I respect that you are posting and present on a
thread that doesn't offer you "easy punches" to throw. It shows intellectual courage. I starred your posts for that alone.....now if you would just
stop with the right wing spin ops

Perhaps there is a win/win possibility here for both Dems and Repubs.

Is this still in "draft" mode or is there some language that is at least comparable to the current laws.

Honestly..? My sense is that this law was written soley for rhetorical purposes, with no expectation that it will ever make it to the GOP dominated
floor of the house. Alas...such is the state of our nation.

The bill was introduced yesterday and sent to the "ways and means" comitee where I expect it will linger until hell freezes over. Bills that the
majority doesn't want to vote on can be "in comitee" for years.

On GovTrack they don't have the text of the bill yet...just the title..

H.R.4379 - To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to exempt single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF
participation rate requirements.

So then, how would you characterize a political agenda directed at making it more difficult and expensive for women pursue justice in cases of
workplace discrimination?...a poltical agenda executed through the repeal of various state laws and conservative court rulings/case law redefingin the
act at the Federal level limiting those protections?

edit on 19-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Taking the aforementioned legislation that was appealed in Wisconsin, nothing was made more difficult than it was prior to that legislation came into
effect. The Equal Pay Act (simplified) says, "Women must be paid the same as men. Those that aren't can sue for damages in federal court."

The Wisconsin legislation added a state court avenue; it went an extra step. So two steps forward. Repealing that didn't make it more difficult, it
took a step back. Two steps forward, one step back. It was reset to its former setting. If you have a beef, it should be with the Equal Rights Act for
not allowing a state court option. Which means that, yet again, both sides of the aisle have failed America.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.